Originally Posted by chuckster243
Originally Posted by T_Inman
Originally Posted by chuckster243
I disagree with your disagreement, the design is to kill not look pretty for an after picture. Where did it fail to meet the design?


I'm not too sure what you're getting at here. I (nor you in the post that I responded to) never said anything about a bullet being designed to "look pretty for an after picture".

If an accubond at above the recommended minimum impact velocity doesn't expand (for whatever reason) after going through bone and lungs and acts like a FMJ, but the animal dies after running several hundred yards did the bullet act as it was designed to? I'd say "no", despite it killing the animal.
Likewise if that same accubond opens up way too quickly and fails to penetrate a scapula, acting more like a varmint grenade, but a small fragment or the core separates and finds its way through to the windpipe or lung and kills the animal after it runs several hundred yards, would you say that accubond worked as it was designed to?

If you say "yes" to both of these scenarios then why do bullet manufactures give details about design such as X% weight retention, designed for penetration through heavy bone, etc.? I've never seen a bullet designed simply to "kill".

Edited to add: I'm not saying these are common scenarios with accubonds....I am just using them as possible examples to illustrate my point.


Have to apologize on that one, most posts I see refer to someone looking for the picture-perfect, magazine-advertisement, mushroom. My bad. I would not say either one performed per design, and have major flaws in either the materials employed in manufacture, or a process that does not supply predictable products. They did both kill, but apparently there are better, more predictable options. A manufacturer supplying x% of retained weight is giving subjective data, they "hope" it holds together and meets their criteria yielding the advertised result. It may or may not, there's too many variables in the middle, not withstanding the same 'oops" that every manufacturer becomes saddled with at some point. I've never seen a bullet specifically advertised as "simply to kill" I thought that was the whole point behind firing a bullet at whatever, in the first place.


Not a problem my man.....always good to her multiple thoughts on subjects such as this.